A process of truth and reconciliation could form the basis for a peaceful and autonomous, but Chinese, Tibet.

The long-exiled Dalai Lama offers the Chinese leadership the last, best chance for a peaceful solution to the simmering ethnic tensions in Tibet.

By:Charles Burton Published on Fri Oct 22 2010

Back in 2006, His Holiness the Dalai Lama was granted honorary Canadian citizenship through a unanimous resolution supported by all parties in the House of Commons. It was a much celebrated, rare moment of happy consensus in Parliament.

But when Prime Minister Stephen Harper met this newly Canadian Nobel laureate in Ottawa the following year, the Chinese government’s propaganda machine responded with a degree of invective rarely employed since the Cultural Revolution: “The Chinese side demands the Canadian side . . . correct its mistaken conduct, immediately adopt effective measures to eliminate adverse impact (from the meeting) and stop winking at or supporting anti-Chinese activities by Tibetan forces.

“This disgusting conduct has seriously hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and undermined Sino-Canadian relations.”

Then the secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region Communist Party Regional Committee was quoted in the Tibet Daily as saying, “The Dalai is a wolf in monk’s robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast. We are now engaged in a fierce blood-and-fire battle with the Dalai clique, a life-and-death battle between us and the enemy.”

The reality is that the Dalai Lama — who speaks today at the Rogers Centre — has made clear that he believes Tibet should remain, as he puts it, “within the family of the People’s Republic of China . . . seeking a solution to the Tibetan issue within the constitution of the PRC.”

In its national constitution, China has identified Tibet as an “autonomous region” but in truth the reins of power in Tibet remain in the hands of Han officials sent from Beijing. The Dalai Lama simply asks that China honour its constitutional commitment to Tibet’s autonomy by allowing Tibetans to govern domestic affairs, while China controls matters of defence and foreign affairs.

But the Chinese counter with a somewhat contradictory argument that, on the one hand, Tibet has “always been part of China,” and on the other that, under Tibetan rule, “old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle” — justifying Tibet’s “liberation” by the Han Chinese.

Today the Dalai Lama is a strong proponent of democratic governance and human rights. As he indicated in 2008, “I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao’s policy of creating a ‘harmonious society,’ but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law. I strongly believe that if these values are embraced, many important problems relating to minority nationalities can be resolved.”

In the final analysis, the conflict between China and Tibet is based in two utterly incompatible interpretations of history as to the “ownership” of the same territory. In fact, Tibetans see the boundaries of their historic lands as extending beyond the Tibetan autonomous region to much of Qinghai and parts of Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces.

Beijing’s answer has been to change the demographic balance by encouraging mass migration of Han Chinese into Tibetan areas. Very few Han Chinese in Tibet learn the Tibetan language, and China has a policy of discouraging education of ethnic Tibetans in the Tibetan language. Beijing also restricts the numbers of Tibetan monks permitted to study the great works of Tibetan Buddhism, so as to inhibit the transmission of Tibet’s high culture to younger generations.

China even attempts to debase the greatness of Tibetan tradition to folkloric elements of happy dancing and singing in accented Mandarin by ersatz nomadic Tibetan herdsmen, who celebrate the mountain grassland scenery. The deep spirituality that is the most important characteristic of the magnificent Tibetan civilization is nowhere to be found. Instead, China invests in Tibet’s material development in the vain hope that young Tibetans will abandon their “backward” culture and language, and seek modernity through identification with China’s Han-led rise to power.

But it appears this policy is having the opposite effect. As Tibetans become more prosperous, their yearning for affirmation of their Tibetan identity only becomes stronger. Beijing, meanwhile, responds with violence to all expressions of Tibetan nationalism, and desecrates by burning all “illegal” Tibetan flags and portraits of the Dalai Lama that the Chinese police and military can set their hands on. So the mutual anger continues to mount.

The current Dalai Lama is now 75 years old, and Beijing may believe that his eventual passing will lead to conditions favourable to China’s further assertion of sovereignty over Tibet. But this is unlikely. The Dalai Lama is probably the strongest proponent of peaceful moderation among Tibetans today, and his demise will almost certainly strengthen the hand of Tibetans calling for more violent resistance to Chinese rule.

Led by the Dalai Lama and a more enlightened Chinese leadership, a process of truth and reconciliation — in which all involved acknowledge past wrongs done — could form the basis for a peaceful and prosperous autonomous, but Chinese, Tibet. The Dalai Lama calls for “a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation,” a position strongly endorsed by Canada and most Western nations.

As a new generation will shortly be replacing the current Chinese administration of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, let us hope that the Dalai Lama will remain in good health long enough to preside over such a resolution of the crisis in his homeland. Then the Dalai Lama could return home to Tibet after more than 50 years in exile — a true cause for celebration by his fellow Canadians.

Charles Burton is an associate professor of political science at Brock University in St. Catharines. He is a former political affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Beijing.